Even with flawed analysis, the EPA concluded that, “averaged over 2010-2050, households will pay an extra $79 to $146 a year. Not exactly a steep price to pay to avoid catastrophe.”
Avoided costs: The reason for climate change mitigation is that unchecked climate change will have catastrophic impacts. For the EPA, reducing the costs of those catastrophic impacts has zero value in their analysis of the American Power Act.
Health Benefits: Fossil Fuel pollution fosters asthma, heart disease, cancers … with analysis suggesting a fiscal cost of some $130 billion per year in added costs to the American economy. Reducing fossil fuel pollution, a corollary impact of climate change mitigation efforts, will lower that toll on Americans’ health and lower the fiscal cost to households and the nation.
Productivity Implications: Reducing the health impacts would mean, surprisingly perhaps, that there would be fewer sick leave days with generally healthier workers — that translates to higher productivity. Climate mitigation would hasten ‘green building’ and study after study shows that ‘green building’ improves worker productivity and educational performance and … The ‘productivity’ impact of greening a building can range from 5 to 10s of percent. The economic value for a society-wide (including schools) 5 % jump in productivity and performance, alone, would turn the EPA calculation from “cost” to “benefit”.
And, in addition to these sort of excluded benefit arenas, the EPA explicitly chose not to analyze many arenas of APA such as “”lighting standards, new regulation for offshore oil and gas extraction, powering vehicles with natural gas provisions, and GHG tailpipe standards.””. Each of these has significant economic impact implications, with lighting standards and GHG tailpipe standards driving significant financial benefits, the NGV provisions potentially having limited economic value, and (to me at least) likely economic benefits from regulation reducing the chances for a Deepwater Horizon II.
June 7th, 2010 · Comments Off on Solar Cooking at the Farmers Market
If embraced, solar cooking has the potential for providing a meaningful Silver BB in the fight to mitigate climate change, in the struggle to reduce health damage from polluting cooking (such as wood or coal burning in inadequately vented homes), and aiding economic strengthening for some of the world’s poorest people (reducing costs (both monetary and otherwise) for fuel for cooking). Solar Cooking, however, is best when combined with highly efficient stoves so that when the sun in unavailable or inadequate, the ‘polluting’ fuel requirements are minimized. GMoke has been a long-time solar and clean-energy advocate and activists. One of his long-promoted concepts, with far less following and attention than it deserves, is to do grass-roots marketing of solar systems at farmers markets (among other public spaces). (He is also heavily involved in energy efficiency barnraisings and advocates another useful action: an energy efficiency barn raising in the White House.) This guest post from SpotDawa, responding to a recent GMoke discussion, provides a window on both solar cooking and efficient wood-burning cooking from the perspective of introducing these to Americans at a local farmers’ market.
Consistently demonstrate practical, affordable energy efficiency and renewable energy ideas, devices, and systems at the over 4000 weekly farmers’ markets that take place across the USA from Memorial Day to Halloween or Thanksgiving.
This is something that we had already started doing this year when taking our organic leaf lettuce to market. The farm that I am working at hosts the workshop portion of a solar cooking course each semester, offered at the local community college. So we are able to demonstrate solar cooking as well as provide an opportunity for further learning for those that become truly intrigued.
BP…lie lie ieesss
Yah so what, some birds die
Laugh Laugh to the bank
HA HA, an oil rig sank.
There are many ways to deal with tragedies and painful situations, with parody often being an effective path. Well, rewriting Lady Gaga with “Oilmance” might have captured how to think about Bloody Polluters.
See the lyrics and discussion of them after the fold.
Raging Grannies can create attention to issues through the unexpected image of a ‘friendly granny’ screaming “you suck”. The video that follows rewrites the Battle Hymn of the Republic to express
The video starts off with an identification of the real challenge: “America is addicted to oil.” Understandably — but mistakenly — the outrage turns to “Halliburton and BP, you suck!” It is hard to disagree with the specific sentiment about how they “profit from their crimes” and the disaster that BP (and associated businesses) have created. The technical arrogance and potential criminal negligence at Deepwater Horizon might be the proximate cause of the oil disaster, but the underlying cause isn’t the specific Corporation(s) but our addiction to oil. While we need to deal with the proximate cause and take the steps for ‘safer’ drilling, we need to reduce the need for drilling via
June 4th, 2010 · Comments Off on BP calls for a gas tax!
A very simple point, brought home to more Americans every day due to the disaster that British Petroleum arrogance and potential criminal negligence has wrought in the Gulf of Mexico:
If we are going to move Beyond Petroleum, it is time to start bringing “externalities” into the cost of fuel. These externalities include:
Paying for both sides of the struggle with violent extremism.
Sending U.S. treasure overseas, every day, that could be spent employing Americans and strengthening U.S. society.
The ‘socialized’ risk of ecological damage.
Climate Change & Global Warming.
Increased cancers and other health problems for American citizens.
There are huge “external costs” not accounted for in the price of gasoline at the pump. Every one of us is contributing, without any real accounting or understanding of our role, to the poisoning of the air we breathe and the poisoning of the water our children drink. We are contributing, each time we fill up the tank (directly or indirectly), to the resources available to inculcate too many of the next generation of Islamic children around the world in the Wahadist propaganda of anti-modernity hatred. We are, every time we use plastic or buy food truck in from far away, contributing to the undermining of America’s future prosperity and security by worsening climate change.
It is time to turn the tide … to turn the tide on climate change’s rising seas … to turn the tide to reduce (rather than increase) the likelihood of another Deepwater Horizon … to turn the tide toward something better.
And, sparking that turning that tide will require national will. It will require national outrage over what BP has done. It will require national understanding of the risks we face and that we are creating. And, it will require a national awakening to the real benefits and the tangible opportunities for setting a path off oil.
And, with that realization and determination firming, the time will become ripe for putting in a gas tax that will begin to price in “externalities”, a gas tax that will incentivize Americans off oil and a gas tax that will provide a revenue stream to fund clean energy alternatives and energy efficiency to hasten the end to our oil addiction.
A steady, incremental but certain, imposition of a gas tax will create a strong signal that will spark ever-greater investments into energy efficiency and alternatives to oil — investments from the individual (where to live, planning trips more carefully, deciding what car to buy) to the community (Plug-In Hybrid Electric School Buses) to businesses (invest in alternate fuel research). A Gas Tax will help change American society, change it for the better, change it into a more secure and more prosperous American for living and as-yet-to-be-born citizens.
To move Beyond Petroleum, it is time to sign up to pricing oil for the damage that it causes because poisoning the air that our children breath shouldn’t be considered an ‘externality’, poisoning the seas where our food comes from isn’t an “externality” to my life, and sending funds to those funding some of the most radical fundamentalist religious education (that encourages violence against modernity) isn’t an externality — we need to sign up to pricing our costs. And, well, if we use the raised resources correctly, we will set ourselves on a path for a 21st century American revival to something better than the nation has every seen. Truly, a sensibly structured gas tax is a tool to help U.S. achieve “a more perfect union”.
Barbara Boxer seems to think that climate change is the real threat to our national security.
Yes, how dare Senator Barbara Boxer pay attention to left-wing, radical, anti-military institutions like the Central Intelligence Agency (which launched “The Center on Climate Change and National Security” last fall chartered to study the national security threats due to climate change impacts) or the Department of Defense (where the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) concluded that “While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.”).
And, her campaign site states that action to mitigate climate change would be “disastrous”.
Besides simply being false and ignoring the reality that inaction is the “disastrous” approach, perhaps it is worth remembering that Carly has spoken strongly in support of Cap & Trade policies as a path toward dealing with climate change. “It will encourage people to find alternatives, which is the most important thing.”
I think it’s important that when we think about taking on some of the great challenges now as opposed to leaving them to future generations, we have to talk not only about Social Security and medical care, but also about leaving our planet cleaner for the next generation than we found it. So I think that’s the context in which he’s talking about climate change, which I think is related closely to the whole discussion of energy independence.
I was interested … to see an op-ed yesterday in The New York Times co-authored by Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Kerry of Massachusetts, because they are trying to take a bipartisan approach to the twin issues of climate change and energy independence.
I was delighted to see them call for bipartisanship and delighted, as well, to see them call for a recognition that both achieving energy independence and addressing climate change as equally important goals, and that, if we do it right, we can create opportunity, we can create jobs, and we can create American leadership.
Note that the Fiorina campaign (oops, Carly Fiorina) is now saying that action to mitigate climate change will cost jobs rather than the potential to “create opportunity … create jobs” that she saw just a few months ago.
Carly Fiorina is up with a new TV ad in the California Senate race slamming Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) for “talking about the weather” (i.e. calling climate change a national security issue) when she should be talking about something really scary, like global terrorist plots to kill us all. Trouble is, Fiorina has often found herself talking about the “weather,” and even expressing concerns about it while mad bombers were likely plotting our demise on foreign shores.
The ad shows a 2007 clip of Boxer, in a tiny video frame (no doubt intentional), saying, “One of the very important national security issues we face, frankly, is climate change.” To which Fiorina, whose image now fills the frame, retorts, “Terrorism kills—and Barbara Boxer is worried about the weather.”
…
back to the “weather” rhetoric. The evidence supporting global climate change is so abundant, so voluminous, that to call it “weather” is appalling. Even Fiorina herself has previously said, “I think there is growing consensus that the issues of climate change and energy independence are inextricably linked,” and that climate change “matters to a lot of people.” Now: “weather.” Talk about a flip-flop.
It’s fine for Republicans to express concern about climate change—as long as they don’t run for national office, it seems.
This is an important point.
Resume embellishing Mark Kirk was for action on climate change (voted for the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy & Security (ACES) Act in the House) before he was against it … Kirk Kisses-up to Kooks on Klimate
Two-year Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) was for action on climate change (voting for MA action in the State legislature) before he was against it … Brown Betrays Best Boston Brains
What follows is a very practical discussion of how to help move ‘green’ incrementally into America’s primary school cafeterias from the perspective of a ‘green’ parent in Virginia.
When it comes to climate mitigation, American culture is in that perfect procrastination storm.
We live in a political culture which, increasingly, speaks of “consumers” rather than ‘citizens’ or ‘voters’ or ‘constituents’ or ‘people’.
We live in a news zone where the health of the economy is defined by the stock ticker (and, well, long term, the quarterly profit report) rather than citizens’ health and satisfaction, long-term prospects, ability to provide meaningful employment for today’s and tomorrow’s citizens (oops … ‘consumers).
We live … in a society that has spent much of the past 30 years partying with ‘short-term gain’ while thrusting problems aside, after all, there is always manana …
At least 20 percent of my fellow citizens (oops, “consumers”) are chronic procrastinators and 95+% of us (U.S.) regularly take actions that fit the bill.
The way that climate mitigation is discussed goes directly against that ‘consumer’ and ‘stock ticker’ culture.
The Institute for Southern Studies provides consistently top flight reporting in its online journal, Facing South, related, to among other things, energy practices in the south that create significant questions of environmental justice and polluting energy practices that threaten the health of all Southerners (actually, all Americans). As the nation’s attention (okay, not enough of it) is on the massive gushing of oil into the Gulf, the Institute is putting out a series of articles by Sue Sturgis based on a long investigation of the implications of toxic coal waste. The Institute graciously allowed a cross-posting of this excellent work.
A special Facing South investigation by Sue Sturgis
Coal ash is one of the country’s biggest waste streams and is full of toxic substances, yet it remains virtually unregulated. Can Washington overcome the fierce opposition of energy interests to protect communities and the environment? [Read more →]
A very simple point, brought home to more Americans every day due to the disaster that British Petroleum arrogance and potential criminal negligence has wrought in the Gulf of Mexico: